On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 09:10:55 GMT, "cream" <cream@creamery.com> wrote:
>My dear,
>
>I wrote to jimmy with a request. You replied for jimmy, which is not good
>usenet behavior. And you replied to what you construed for your own purposes
>as a criticism of posters. That is dishonest.
>
>I am critical of the self-appointed gatekeepers of this group, and what they
>are doing against our friends. I am crtical of their misuse of the locks to
>access the great work of posters. The posters are correct to use these locks
>and everyone is correct in maintaining the integrity of these locks. There
>is however no logical reaon for the locks to be used as a gate against our
>friends' access. That has always been my point. You are lying by preseningt
>what I have been saying for your own purposes. You dig the grave of your own
>credibility.
I've built my credibility, integrity and reputation for twelve years
now. Same nic, same everything. This is the first time I've seen your
nic, though I've an idea who you might be.
>I would have nothing to say at all if people to whom access had been
>promised by jimmy had got access. You want to thrust at us on the pretext
>that you are correcting me the complete fiction that everyone who has asked
>for access has got it. The evidence is in the long string of posts up to
>just some hours ago of our friends who are locked out. They have been
>complaining. Not me. I have been putting their situation to jimmy. Not you.
>You are putting your credibilty further into the grave by saying it is I who
>have been complaining and that there is no reason for anyone to complain.
>
>You know all too well that to force our friends to use hushmail to get
>access is too big a price to ask them to pay. Yet you endorse it, and make
>it a condition for access, in the same breath as your heart is bleeding for
>the safety of these same people. You hypocrite!
Go back and read my post carefully. I never mentioned hushmail, nor
did I endorse it. I suggested that our friends could PING me or write
to me. I never said anything about hushmail. That was you,
fearmongering. Your reply didn't include my statements, giving you an
opportunity to put words in my mouth. To turn a phrase: You bury your
own credibility.
The poster risks all to share. One can download anonymously on usenet,
one can lurk and never be seen. The posters assume all the risks and
therefore will post in a way that makes them feel comfortable. How is
that not fair?
>
>The means to access should be given in a risk-free way.
Suggestions? How can this be done? Criticsm is one thing, helpfulness
is another.
>Troublemakers will
>be able to find how to access posts, but in finding out, using the means,
>and accessing posts in order to have evidence against the group, they will
>incriminate themselves. That's not going to happen. All of that is irelevant
>to LEAs, who likely already have access since it is as easy as sending a
>hushmail email to you, as you have pointed out. And LEAs won't want to shut
>down the group until their mission is accomplished. You have dug your
>credibility even further by pushing our friends to risk their safety for
>access instead of suggesting to jimmy as I have done that our friends get
>access without risking their safety. As you also know all too well, the
>locks have nothing to do with the safety of the posters nor the downloaders.
>That is a different issue altogether to the one of access. You however only
>succeed in confusing these matters.
Security is the responsibility of the individual. I pointed out early
on that this business is fraught with risk. You criticize, but offer
no alternatives. Please be specific about how to safely post with safe
access to all.
>It should be clear to everyone whose side I am on.
Now it's us VS them? How very political of you.
>Thanks and best wishes to jimmy and the posters. Dear friends I'm sorry you
>might not get access, but weigh up the risk you take by exposing yourself by
>using the hushmail contact. Be sure to set up a hushmail account and use it
>at a public computer such as at an internet cafe. Never use hushmail at a
>computer that is in any way connected with you. Hushmail requires Java, and
>Java sends information about the computer you are using which identifies it.
Java is required for the PGP portion of their service. It is not
required to send and receive e-mails. That said, the above paragraph
is excellent advice to all. Oneneedn't evn use hushmail. Sign up for
any free e-mail and use it as a one-off account.
Stay Safe,
Doc
NP-f31
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
|